118 Caution against Evangelical Divines. causes of things, both gives subsistence to, and contemplates whatever the universe contains, without departing from the speculation of himself. But if with respect to intellect, one kind is more partial, and another more total, it is evident that there is not the same intellectual perfection of all things, but that where intelligibles have a total and undistributed subsistence, there the knowledge is more total and indivisible, and where the number of forms proceeds into multitude and extension, there the knowledge is both one and multiform. Hence, this being admitted, we cannot wonder on hearing the Orphic verses, in which the theologist says Αυτή δε Ζηνός και εν ομμασι πατρος ανακτος Ναιουσ' αθανατοι τε θεοι, θνητοι τ' ανθρωποι Όσσα τε ην γεγαώτα, και υστερον οσσα έμελλον. There in the sight of Jove, the parent king, Th' immortal gods and mortal men reside, With all that ever was, and shall hereafter be. For the artificer of the universe is full of intelligibles, and possesses the causes of all things separated from each other: so that he generates men, and all other things, according to their characteristic peculiarities, and not so far as each is divine, in the same manner as the divinity prior to him, the intelligible father Phanes." The admirable dogma in this most beautiful extract," that knowledge subsists according to the nature of that which knows, and not according to the nature of that which is known," was originally derived from Iamblichus, as is evident from the commentary of Ammonius on Aristotle's Treatise on Interpretation. (See note to p. 162 of my translation of the Organon.) Boethius in the 5th book of his Treatise De Consolatione, elegantly illustrates this dogma. The passage I allude to begins with the words- Omne enim quod cognoscitur, non secundum sui vim, sed secundum cognoscentium potius comprehenditur facultatem." The sources how ever from whence he derived this doctrine, appear to have been unknown to all his editors and commentators; for they are not noticed by any of them. THOS. TAYLOR. Manor-place, Walworth. [March 1, of Evangelical Divines. As a proof of my assertion, and to put other old-fashioned clergymen like myself on their guard against those deeply-designing and insidious characters, I will briefly relate the recent conduct of one of them in the parish of which I am the officiating minister. A clergyman of the Calvinistic cast, and who has much more zeal than knowledge, and certainly not less bigotry than charity, residing in my neighbourhood, lately called on one of my parishioners, who is a common friend to him and myself; and after expatiating a good deal on religious topics, especially on the truth of his own principles, and the excellence of those who profess them, came at last to-what should you suppose, Mr. Editor? why, surely not to any encomium on myself as a pastor, but to what I never could have believed had it not come to me from the very per son to whom it was addressed, viz. an urgent persuasion that this person would leave my church for a meeting-house. I have said that these men are insidious, and I am warranted in saying so; for this very clergyman at this moment, as far as outward appearances go, might be taken for one of my most cordial friends. But to pass over the bearing of this conduct towards myself as an individual, I would ask any man if he can deny that it is a most convincing proof, that the church of England is cherishing in her bosom the most poisonous serpents, and that she is in no small danger of getting her death by their stings. But how can this clergyman reconcile such conduct with his ordination vow? When he was be ready with all faithful diligence to bamade a priest, he solemnly promised "to nish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines." Now, all dissenters certainly hold opinions which be, as a clergyman of the church of England, ought to consider both "strange and er roneous;" for if they did not hold tenets different from us, there could be no cause for their separation. This divine professes to be a most zealous friend to the church of which he is a minister, a sincere believer in her doctrines, and a great admirer of her discipline. I hope you will permit me to record, in your excellent Magazine, the foregoing true statement of his conduct as a lasting proof of the sincerity of his friendship, the reality of his belief, and the warmth of his attach ment. With great esteem for you, Mr. Editor, I am certainly No CALVINIST CLERGYMAN, December 2, 1815, 1816.] Mr. Woodforde on Commerce and the Act of Navigation. MR. EDITOR, HISTORIANS and political economists, both of ancient and modern times, ever dwell with pride and admiration on those periods of society which have been distinguished for the introduction and the subsequent establishment of commerce. In a philosophical view, the sources of true and real greatness of empires have been thence derived. It is through the progress of civilization that a nation becomes pre-eminent, only in proportion to the energies and capacities of her commercial character, thereby opening new avenues to wealth, guided by a well-protected maritime adventure, under the legislative authority of bounties and special immunities. The pure and exalted spirit of English freedom, planted in the earliest period of her history, has paved the way to an unrivalled elevation of trade and commerce. Our Statute Books do not contain an act of more importance than the 12th Charles the Second, commonly called an Act for the encouraging and increasing of Shipping and Navigation. It is hereafter intended to go into the nature of the whole of the enactments of this celebrated act, as well as into the grounds of its several suspensions, their utility, and expediency. Reverting to the period of the passing of the Act of Navigation, we are necessarily called upon to consider the then state of British commerce, and the difficulties which were connected with its increase and preservation, to remove which became the great object of legislative wisdom. In order, therefore, to call forth and establish an adventurous spirit, laws were enacted with great encouragements to British shipping, at the same time containing prohibitions and penalties with a view to prevent the foreign shipping already commencing the career of carriers by sea. Hence we must date the origin of the Act of Navigation, and ever after cousider it as the Magna Charta of our commercial pursuits and ascendancy. It was therefore esential that the act should embody the most salutary principles of general laws, well digested in terms, to oppose the continued violations and encroachments which were daily shewing their dangerous effects through a systematic increasing carrying trade by foreigners. The influence of these provisions and encouragements at once excited emulation and adventure, and were well adapted to advance the views of the English mer 119 chant, by the extension of the bounda ries of a then circumscribed navigation. A contemplative mind, in tracing the almost imperceptible progress of British shipping, is suddenly seized with admira tion at the more rapid unfoldings of capacity for trade and commerce in the bright era of Charles the Second's reign. In this view, we have the solid faith, probity, and integrity of the merchant; we have before us those master principles of conduct, which through every age have maintained an unsullied honour and dignity, have, in their just operation, elevated England to the enviable name of modern Carthage, leaving upon the mind the full conviction of that immutable truth, that national prosperity is best promoted by national integrity. Unqualified and unphilosophical in the extreme was the expression of the late usurper of the French empire in calling a nation like our own, made omnipotent by commerce, a nation of shopkeepers. With the commerce of our country, every other honourable distinction among men has kept pace: its noble spirit has fostered the elegant productions of art, cherished the ardour of philosophy, and protected and patronized men whose high literary excellence has spread renown on the British name over the whole habitable world. The wealth of nations thus sought and obtained, is the truest dignity of man, and may emphatically be called the dignity of commerce. Dec. 23, 1815. MR. EDITOR, R. D. WOODForde, Customs, London. THE object of this paper is to prove that London surpasses Paris in the number and merit of its buildings public and private, considered with a view to architectural beauty. This opinion will perhaps appear paradoxical to the inhabitants of both capitals, for I have found them in general thoroughly per suaded to the contrary of what I here advance. The Parisians, brought up in the idea, that next to Italy, France, and Paris in particular, possesses the finest specimens of architecture, because they are wholly built of stone, could not help believing that their metropolis is far superior in this point to the British capital, where some of the public edifices and many private houses, are of brick and stone, or of brick only. The French, the inhabitants of Paris who have of late years visited London, have retained this idea, because it is difficult to give up an 120 M. Quatremère de Roissy on London & Paris. [March 1, opinion that we have once formed, and because the French are very apt to take a rapid, and consequently a superficial view of things. Two circumstances afford some excuse for them; the metropolis has received such considerable accessions on all sides, that it is become difficult to see, much less to examine every thing with due attention; and the English, the people of London them selves, very generally admit that their capital, which they are nevertheless proud of, is inferior to Paris in regard to monuments of architecture and handsome edifices. For my part, though not long since I held the same language as the people of London and Paris, I now profess a totally contrary opinion. I shall not therefore be suspected of improper partiality in being the first to assert, that London surpasses Paris in the number and merit of its public and private edifices. Being in London in 1814, when the weather was fine, and I had abundance of leisure, I determined to explore it with more attention than I had done in preceding visits, which indeed had been but very short. My curiosity was principally directed to the productions of the arts of design. I saw on this occasion more than I had ever be fore seen; but yet not enough. From that time, however, I began to cherish a suspicion which led me to the opinion that I now entertain, and that I owe to a series of observations made during my present residence in London. I am not afraid that after I have stated my reasons, I shall be accused by my countrymen of Anglomania. It should be remarked to the honour of the English, that it is chiefly by their public edifices erected within these few years, that they have given to their capital an importance and a splendour worthy of so rich and powerful an empire. I shall not be charged with ignorance of the state of the French metropolis, in regard to the point in question, when it is known that I was born there about the middle of the last century, that it has always been the place of my residence, which I have never left, except for the purpose of some short journies, and that I was there a very few months ago. Whatever idea may be formed of the writer of this paper, he is determined to advance nothing without proof. I shall therefore take the liberty of entering into some details when I think them necessary to elucidate the subject. It is to persons of taste and study, for both are requisite, that I particularly address myself. I know how many people are to be found in England, who have enlightened their understanding, and formed their taste by an examination of the master-pieces of architecture in the native country of the arts. Should these respectable judges discover in this paper the language of an amateur of architec ture and a sense of beauty, I owe them to the man who is unrivalled in France for his knowledge in the arts of design, and for exquisite taste in regard to the beauties of antiquity.* I have undertaken to adduce proofs in support of my opinion: the best way of fulfilling this engagement will be to review the buildings on either side, and to compare them in regard to their principal qualities. I shall not enter into details, except in regard to such structures as are least known to the public. Respecting those in the Gothic style I shall say but a few words, and merely remark that the Cathedral of Westminster is far superior to the Cathedral of Paris in the boldness and lightness of its interior, and still more for its exterior structure, since the erection of its two new towers. I must observe here, once for all, that I shall consider the public buildings and other edifices chiefly with regard to their exterior, as being the most striking to the eye, and tending more immediately to embellish the respective capitals. CHURCHES. At Paris there is nothing in this class worth mentioning, except the church of Val de Grace, the new church of St. Genevieve (lately the Pantheon), the churches of St. Sulpice, St. Gervais for its portico, St. Philip du Roule, St. Roch, and St. Thomas Aquinas.— Against these buildings London can produce St. Paul's, so vast, so majestic, the exterior decorations of which (a point that more especially concerns ny subject) are so grand and so rich, while those of the Pantheon of Paris, with the exception of its portico and dome, are so cold and so poor; the church of St. Mary le Strand, the architecture of whose exterior bespeaks the richness of decoration and the elegant style which prevail within: the churches of St. Martin's in the Fields and St. George's, Hanover-square, remarkable for their beautiful porticos of the Corinthian order: the little church of St. Stephen's, Walbrook, the plan, proportions, and decoration of M. Quatiemere de Quincy, IntendantGeneral of the Arts and of the Publie Monuments in France. 1816.] M. Quatremère De Roissy on London and Paris. which, cannot be too highly admired: and lastly, the new church of Mary-lebone, built of stone and brick, which will perhaps surpass all the others in beauty of architecture, and in the luxury of its external decoration, especially on the principal front, which is to be embellished with a Corinthian portico. Though this edifice is not finished on the outside, I cannot help thinking that sound criticism may already censure the extension of its front beyond the body of the building, which forms an oblong square, and the two appendages like small wings, which correspond with it at the extremities. In my opinion, a circular form with a colonade, would make a better finish. Other churches, which I cannot euumerate within the compass of this communication, make a handsome appearance with their porticos, towers, and steeples, and are ornaments to the city. London seems to me to rival Paris in its religious edifices, though the churches of the latter are in general more extensive, but mostly built at a time when bad taste was predominant. PALACES. In this class Paris has the Louvre, the Tuilleries, the Luxembourg, the Palais Royal, the Palais Bourbon, the Elisée Bourbon, and the Palais du Temple. The three first, as grand structures, with very beautiful parts, are far superior to those edifices in London which can be denominated palaces: but the buildings which I shall mention are perhaps not inferior in regard to the merit of their architecture. The Banquetting-house, Whitehall, the Horse Guards, SomersetHouse, Buckingham-House, CarletonHouse, and the Mansion-House, are edifices which, in my opinion, may be termed palaces. The detached relic of the royal and fatal palace of Whitehall is admired by all who admire the peristyle of the "Louvre. The Horse Guards, which I class with the palaces, bas much of the appearance of one, especially on the front that looks into St. James's Park, from its extent, and from the style and good taste of its solid construction. In my opinion it is rather heavy, and the petty cupola or lantern which crowns it, is not free from censure. There is nothing happy either in its form or in its details. A building close to it, bordering the Park on the left as you enter, known by the name of the Treasury, which I mention here only on account of its contiguity, is not merely exempt from reproach, but deserves the highest praise; it is a structure perfect NEW MONTHLY MAG.-No. 26. 121 in its proportions, in which elegance and good taste are combined with the most apparent solidity. Upon a rustic subbasement, wrought in arcades, rises a story in stone, with seven quadrangular windows inserted within circular openings. This story is terminated by an entablature, on the middle of which are four columns of the Ionic order, surmounted by a handsome pediment. These columns stand in front of a second story, arranged like the first, excepting the middle window, which is larger, and more highly decorated. This second story displays in every part all the elegance and ornaments of the Ionic order. This edifice, contemporaneous with the Horse Guards, seems to me to be the production of the same architect. I have entered into these descriptive details of this little structure, because I believe that very few of the English themselves have paid due attention to its merits.Somerset-House is a real palace; its square court is, in my opinion, in a better style of architecture than the court of the Louvre. The least striking part of this noble edifice is the front next to the Strand. It seems, though good in itself, not to correspond in beauty with the rest, to be inferior in the style of the architecture and general arrangement. This front, it is true, though not of older date than the middle of the last century, is already black with age, and appears somewhat injured by the inclemency of the atmosphere. shall say nothing of its immense front next to the Thames, because that is not yet finished. This palace in its present state, is not so extensive, but possess higher architectural merit than the Luxembourg. BuckingHouse and Carleton-House are likewise inferior in extent to the Palais Royal and Palais Bourbon, but they have more unity and regularity. The portico of Carleton-House is preferable to that of the Palais Bourbon. The Mansion-House must be mentioned for its fine portico of the Corinthian order, and its beautiful lateral façades. My conclusion is that Paris seems to eclipse her rival in palaces. THEATRES AND PRISONS. London has two edifices erected within these few years at a great expense for dramatic exhibitions. Covent-Garden Theatre has a more striking exterior for its great extent entirely of stone, or at least apparently so, and for its decoration. In front is a Doric portico in all the primitive simplicity of that order. This edifice, though otherwise imposing, VOL. V. R 122 M. Quatremère De Roissy on London and Paris. may be charged with a want of what is termed character. The basso-relievos and the statues which seem to indicate the destination of the structure, produce but little effect, because they do not correspond in magnitude and importance with the whole. Why should not an architect who is employed to build a theatre, give to the exterior that circular form which it usually has within? This form alone, independently of appropriate decoration, would distinguish such a structure from every other, and proclaim the purpose for which it is designed. Drury-lanc Theatre, equally so lid and extensive with the other, has still less to indicate that it is the temple of Thalia and Melpomene. Its principal front, with its four pilasters and its five windows above as many arcades, appears very naked and very cold. At any rate, these two edifices, situated nearly in the centre of the metropolis, are ornaments to it. Paris has nothing to set against these two structures, though it contains a great number of theatres. The same observation applies to its prisons, which, to say no worse of them, are insignificant. Newgate is the finest building of the kind that has ever been erected, for that may certainly be called fine which has a great character. This character is found in the solidity of its construction in free stone, in the roughness of its rustic work, and in the absence of external windows. What enhances the merit of this building, which is divided into five parts, is the employment of the forms of elegant architecture; it is even ornamental on account of its quadranguJar niches, likewise in rustic, with a pediment a decoration well calculated to break the uniformity of two still larger masses without apertures. On a line with this prison there is another, which serves as a kind of counterpart to it, and is worthy of notice; it is built in the same style, and is not deficient in cha'racter. This edifice is crowned with pediments. *It is singular that no engraving of this edifice is to be found in London. There is one at Paris executed under the direction of M. Quatremère de Quincy, from the design of a French artist. [The writer, whose remarks seem to indicate an acquaintance with MALTON's Picturesque Tour through London and Westminster, will find in that scarce and expensive work a very fine print, description, and criti«cism of the building.-EDITOR.] [March 1, HOSPITALS, MILITARY AND CIVIL. Here it is that the humanity and generosity of the English are most conspicu ous. I shall say nothing of the magnificent hospital at Greenwich, because it does not come within my plan; but shall notice the two establishments at Chelsea, because Chelsea belongs to London as much as Chaillot to Paris. The Hos pital for disabled soldiers at Chelsea is à vast building of brick and stone. The principal entrance is adorned with four columns of the Doric order, and a pediment. Beyond a fine vestibule, opening on the one hand into the chapel, and on the other into the refectory, is a portico, likewise of four Doric columns, under which you pass into a spacious quadrangular court-yard, two sides of which are bordered by the wings that run from the body of the building. In the middle of each of these wings is a portico of Doric pilasters, with a pediment. These wings, terminated by a kind of pavilion, exhibit on their side elevation a façade, running in a parallel line with the other, but with this difference, that the portico in the center, of four Doric pilasters, projects so as to correspond with the two pavilions at the extremities. This . extensive pile has two rows of windows above those of the ground floor. The roots are high. The style of the whole is simple, but very noble. Secondary buildings, part of which face the grand external line with the principal entrance, form small masses in a very good taste, that combine and harmonize with the principal structure. This edifice is said to have been erected after the designs of the architect of St. Paul's. I cannot quit it without observing, that the statue of King William, nearly of colossal dimensions, is placed upon a base which seems disproportionate. Near this hospital stands a vast building called the Royal Military Asylum, for the education of soldiers' children of both sexes. It is new, and constructed of brick and stone. Upon a sub-basement rises a line divided into five parts, and having a range of nineteen windows, the first row of which are in semi-circular arches, with entablatures. The main body of the building has thirteen windows with dressings. In front is a portico with four Doric columns, and a pediment of the height of the edifice, the roof of which is low. On each side of this main body, but thrown back, is a gallery of three arcades, with a balustrade above. Each of these galleries communicates with a pavilion on a line |